Yosemite Helo Rescue 7/10 - Half Dome ?

The argument that people who got to the table first get to make decisions that affect the climbing community for the rest of eternity just doesn’t square with me. 

That's not the argument. The ethic (argument) used in the USA is the first ascender generally determines how many bolts and where they are placed on a new route. If the local climbing community decides bolts should be added or moved they are added or moved and the community allows those added bolts to remain (e.g. there are lots of bolts added on El Cap to make belays safer/modern). If someone decides on their own to change the route without getting community input and adds bolts the community disagrees those bolts are often removed. Added bolts for leading on a pitch generally lowers the mental challenge of the climb. The mental challenge is often a large part of why people want to do many traditional routes. Especially a route like Snake Dike which has an R rating. It is a route that is identified for it's challenging mental nature and it appeals to many climbers because of it. It is not a sport route.

But do I have just as much right as anyone else to weigh in on what’s going on in a National Park in my home state? 

IMO you do have a right to weigh in and I hope people would be respectful in their replies. However these discussions have happened thousands of times before, and your arguments have been stated many times before. Many newer climbers (myself included when I started climbing years ago) learn about why things are done the way they are and then they make more sense to them. I would hope you would read the replies from people with more experience and try to understand why the prevailing ethic is the way it is.

What I think is that we can’t be so rigid as to never adjust a route just because someone long ago did it a certain way and because an elite few want to keep it that way. 

As mentioned above we do adjust routes (Snake Dike itself had bolts added on the second ascent to turn if from probably an X rated climb to an R rated climb. It's not just because someone long ago did it that way, there's reasons from the prevailing ethic. 

It's not an elite few. It's the majority of climbers who have been climbing for a number of years and understand the difference between sport climbing and traditional climbing.

Because the purpose of a National Park is to be accessible to all, not just a handful of folks who count themselves more special than the rest.

The national park is accessible to all. But not all climbs are accessible to all climbers. There are sport routes, easy traditional routes that are easy to protect, and traditional routes that are difficult to protect or have run outs. You pick the climb that is right for you, that is your responsibility. 

 Sometimes it makes sense to add bolts for the greater good. Snake Dike may be a perfect example of when that’s the case, and when, maybe, the community at large should be able to come to an agreement to make a change. There’s a few factors I think should be heavily considered in such a conversation: 

1. Popularity. People love this route. As noted already, it’s fun, easy and has amazing views. If someone is a decent climber and is willing to do the big hike in, why shouldn’t they get to safely enjoy this route? Definitely seems like a case where the needs of a small elite are taking precedence over the needs of the general population.

The route is already so popular among the people who can safely climb it as is there is a line at the base and people that have made the big hike in have to turn around since there's not enough time in the day for everyone to get up it. Why should it be made more popular if it can't handle any more people. If bolts were added to make it "safer" more people without the requisite skill, experience, and judgement would attempt it and there would likely more MORE accidents, not less. If your skills, experience, and judgement are appropriate should be able to safely enjoy this route as it is. It is a route that entails a fair amount of risk. Most traditional climbing routes entail risk. It's up to the climber to understand the risk (again the route is rated R), pick an appropriate climb, and manage that risk.

1. Alternatives. Is there really an opportunity for developing a similar grade climb nearby on the same formation?  If there is potential to develop other similar routes up Half Dome, *maybe* there’s an argument for developing something else instead of making Snake Dike safer. But we need to keep in mind that Half Dome doesn’t belong to anybody, and just because someone got there first doesn’t mean they and their supporters should get to control a good way up. Sorry some of us weren’t born yet, but we’re here now and we should be part of the conversation about what comes next. 

It's not about that someone who got there first. It's about all the future climbers who deserve to experience the challenge the route is known for. If you change that challenge you rob that from all future climbers. If you can't climb Snake Dike you can hike/climb the cables, which is a fantastic experience in itself in my opinion. 

1. Practicality. Is it true that the extent of Anna’s injuries were caused by being way off route and that they couldn’t have been mitigated by adding more bolts? Seems like we’re not sure. Bottom line, though, if adding bolts *could* prevent fatal or near-fatal accidents, that should be a consideration we take as a community. Shit happens, even to the most experienced climbers.

The reason we have the first ascent ethic (note: the first ascent ethic is not new, Royal Robbins wrote about it in the 1960s) is because although it may not be perfect but it's the best idea we've had to maintain the nature of routes and prevent a slippery slope to adding as many bolts to any climb as someone wants. How many bolts do we add to mitigate risks? 1 more bolt per pitch? That's still 50 foot plus run outs on Snake Dike. 3 more bolts per pitch? Someone could still fall and hit the dike and get hurt. We get to the point where it would be bolted like a sport climb with bolts every 6 feet. If it was bolted like a sport climb wouldn't that change the nature of the route?  Wouldn't it completely change the mental challenge of the route? So as I mentioned the first ascent ethic may not be perfect but it's the best idea we have AND it can be modified that if the community does agree bolts should be added they are and they are not removed. If multiple people fell at that point and there was a discussion where a single bolt added would prevent an obvious out of character risk compare to the rest of the route a bolt would be added. But Snake Dike is known for being a runout R rated route. You would need to add perhaps one to two dozen bolts to remove most of the runouts and remove the R rating. 

If you have a better idea than the first ascent ethic that allows a limited number of bolts to be added to routes without a free for all where routes are reduced to the lowest common denominator for anyone who wants to climb it let's hear it. These discussions have happened many times and I've never heard a better solution than the first ascent ethic with limited community approved changes when appropriate.

What governing body would help us make these kinds of judgements as a community is yet to be seen. But I agree with one of the posters here (sorry I lost track of who it was!) that if we don’t make these kinds of decisions as a community we will see more accidents and, subsequently, more access lost through higher powers like NPS closing things down.

Thanks to S Saunders, btw, for a heartfelt and nuanced perspective about our values. And, of course, my heart goes out to Anna who should have been (but maybe still will be) part of the future of our sport.

The governing body is the local community of climbers. We have done a great job for decades with the ethics that climbers from the golden age of climbing (the 1950s and 60s) handed down to us. The biggest change was in the 1980s when sport climbing came into play as a less risky style of climbing with different first ascent methods being appropriate. If you want a climb with minimal risk you do a sport climb. If you want a climb that may include a mental challenge you do a trad climb, especially an R rated climb.

Half a dozen people have died on the cables route in the last 15 years. This suggests to me that making snake dike seem safer by adding bolts will probably lead to more accidents and deaths, not fewer. 

Climbing is INHERENTLY dangerous and can result in serious injury or death at any time.

People of all skill levels are regularly seriously injured or die on routes of ALL perceived safety ratings. On occasion, this is the result of objective dangers but the vast majority of times, it is the result of user error.

Even the most safely bolted sport routes cannot protect you from injury due to user error. It happens all the time. I’m traveling without a computer so I won’t bother to enumerate the dozens of ways this has happened in numerous recorded circumstances. The idea that safer routes prevent death is an illusion. Route safety cannot prevent user error.

I have led many R rated routes without injury and I have gotten injured on some R rated routes. I accept that all my injuries resulted because I chose to climb. I chose the route, I chose the lead. Many of us climb lots of routes with easy 5th class terrain that would result in serious injury or death If we fell.  We either don’t or cannot protect these pitches.  We make that choice. The choice to climb, the choice of the route, the choice to lead, the choice to solo, the choice of a partner.  Any choice can be interpreted as user error in hindsight if it doesn’t go as planned.  

This horrible, tragic accident was the result of user error. 

Thanks Glowering for the thoughtful response. I have some questions/thoughts to follow up with. 

If the local climbing community decides bolts should be added or moved they are added or moved and the community allows those added bolts to remain (e.g. there are lots of bolts added on El Cap to make belays safer/modern). If someone decides on their own to change the route without getting community input and adds bolts the community disagrees those bolts are often removed. Added bolts for leading on a pitch generally lowers the mental challenge of the climb.

Who, though, is the local climbing community? I worry that it's just the loudest people who have been around the longest. What mechanism exists to make sure we're getting representative input? What I see is that when people have a concern about under-bolting, like in this convo, others simply threaten to chop any bolts added. That, to me, doesn't seem like the community working together to make the best decision for all. 

IMO you do have a right to weigh in and I hope people would be respectful in their replies. 

Thanks ;)

However these discussions have happened thousands of times before, and your arguments have been stated many times before. Many newer climbers (myself included when I started climbing years ago) learn about why things are done the way they are and then they make more sense to them. I would hope you would read the replies from people with more experience and try to understand why the prevailing ethic is the way it is.

I certainly have been absorbing as much as possible and made a point to read every post on this thread before commenting. I will say that practical posts (more bolts won't prevent all accidents, maybe we'll draw more people which will increase accidents, etc.) resonate much more with me than value posts. Honestly I just think my personal values don't demand that I climb a route in the same way it was done before. You mention that this convo keeps coming up (and I'm definitely aware that I'm not the first to say these things just as others here aren't the first to express why they value the traditional ethic), but I think that's just what happens when many people with different values share common resources. And I'd hope people would stay open to these discussions. 

It's not an elite few. It's the majority of climbers who have been climbing for a number of years and understand the difference between sport climbing and traditional climbing.

Do we have actual stats on this? Speaking seriously, I think that would be totally interesting to see. I worry though that not everyone's voice is being represented as I think these spaces can be a scary place for newer/underrepresented members to speak up. That's honestly one reason I wanted to post here. I almost never express my opinions on the internet. But comments about people whining about needing to get home to take care of their "plants" I find really irritating. There's nothing wrong with people wanting to enjoy a sport they love AND wanting to get home safe to their families. And their voices should count just as much as people (like myself) who are childfree in part to better enjoy a life in the outdoors. 

How many bolts do we add to mitigate risks? 1 more bolt per pitch? That's still 50 foot plus run outs on Snake Dike. 3 more bolts per pitch? Someone could still fall and hit the dike and get hurt. We get to the point where it would be bolted like a sport climb with bolts every 6 feet. If it was bolted like a sport climb wouldn't that change the nature of the route?  Wouldn't it completely change the mental challenge of the route? So as I mentioned the first ascent ethic may not be perfect but it's the best idea we have AND it can be modified that if the community does agree bolts should be added they are and they are not removed.

I'm going to sacrifice myself here because I know other people have the same question as I do. I'd like to hear people's perspective of when a trad climb turns into a sport climb and really what the difference is. I think we all know a straight sport route when we see it, same with trad. But I think it's a good exercise to ask the question of how many bolts you have to add to a route like Snake Dike to make it a sport route and what mental challenge means to trad. Would love to hear people's thoughts. 

If you have a better idea than the first ascent ethic that allows a limited number of bolts to be added to routes without a free for all where routes are reduced to the lowest common denominator for anyone who wants to climb it let's hear it. These discussions have happened many times and I've never heard a better solution than the first ascent ethic with limited community approved changes when appropriate.

This is a critical point and an area which I've actually worked on in a completely different (not climbing/outdoors) context. When you're trying to create services or guidelines for a certain community, you ideally put some work in to figure out what that community encompasses and get buy-in and participation from the various sections therein. As has been noted in this thread, the climbing community has changed a lot in recent years, so how do you incorporate different voices, including newcomers. If this were my project I would start with some surveys and qualitative interviews just to understand the parameters of the community of users of the area. Please point me to any of those efforts that already might exist. :) 

I'm very curious to hear more about when "the community" has decided to alter a route and how perspectives were collected to make those decisions. If you have time to throw some examples my way, I would be more than delighted to read about them. 

Thanks! 

When I first started climbing I though huge aspects of the sport were ridiculous.  Why not bolt all routes safely?  Why does trad still exist?  I was certain I would never have any interest in climbing unsafely bolted routes or climbing on gear, since it just presented unnecessary and irrational risk.

As I learned more and climbed more my mindset slowly shifted.  Eventually, I took up trad climbing but only when I could fully manage risk.  And then, as I got more comfortable on rock and more confident in my climbing I started to appreciate the difference  between risk and potential consequences.

I’ve now climbed a couple PG-13 or R rated routes.  Soloed a couple things.  Nothing hard or impressive, but I got a lot of personal feeling of accomplishment out of these things.  And being able to say to myself “I climbed <name of climb>” is a feeling of accomplishment.  I’m now glad these routes exist, though Gumby me would have told you there’s no harm in retrobolting them all to gym standards.  There’s a reason it’s the “folks that have been around the longest” that feel this way — it takes time to build confidence in your ability to climb and assess risk, and it’s natural to want to have access to everything immediately.

Some routes are physically, technically, or logistically difficult.  I’ll never free the dawn wall, but I don’t think we should chip it so I can.  Routes can have an element of psychological challenge as well, and they don’t have to be Valley .11+ test pieces for that challenge to exist / be valid.  If anything, having an ultraclassic 5.7R makes this sort of challenge MORE accessible, since you don’t have to be a 5.12 climber to appreciate it.  If it’s not for you don’t climb it, it’s not like it’s the only 5.7 in the valley.

Thank you, Glowering, for your patient elucidation of this debate.

Thank you, Lindzi, for having the courage to ask the questions that prompted it. 

Lind zi wrote:

I'm going to sacrifice myself here because I know other people have the same question as I do. I'd like to hear people's perspective of when a trad climb turns into a sport climb and really what the difference is. I think we all know a straight sport route when we see it, same with trad. But I think it's a good exercise to ask the question of how many bolts you have to add to a route like Snake Dike to make it a sport route and what mental challenge means to trad. Would love to hear people's thoughts. 

Its not really about the bolts. The line between sport and other forms of climbing is when you can fall largely without consequence. Tighter bolting is really a consequence of the philosophy of minimizing all risk of injury from falling. To that end, I doubt anything short of a ladder will make falling safe on snake dike. For the folks who want to “enjoy a sport without having to worry about not coming home…” great news: sport climbing exists.

It is the fundamental philosophy that climbing should exist without serious consequence that is at the heart of the split in the sport. It is true that you’ll find more folks represented here who think consequences are a critical part of their experience. But I’m not particularly interested in inviting the other side to talk about something I already know I fundamentally disagree with just for representation or balance. 

When you're trying to create services or guidelines for a certain community, you ideally put some work in to figure out what that community encompasses and get buy-in and participation from the various sections therein.

Here is what you're not getting - there is no "climbing community." And these routes will be defended. It doesn't matter if you like it or even understand it.

Lind zi wrote:

There's nothing wrong with people wanting to enjoy a sport they love AND wanting to get home safe to their families.

The crux of the issue is that the masses don't have to climb Snake Dike. The vast majority of routes aren't R rated and are quite available. I realize people really want to climb this route up the side of Half Dome but adding more bolts doesn't make it any safer, people will still make mistakes and get themselves hurt like the person in question did; reference the citation of the Half Dome cables route getting more people killed despite being 1000% safer, because it gets more traffic of people who are in over their head due to the implied safety / level of access.

The way to get people home to their families safely is to start telling climbers to take risk more seriously. We could triple the number of bolts on Snake Dike and we could almost assuredly see more people getting hurt. There are so many routes in the valley that people can enjoy and have a much better chance of getting home safe to their families. Instead of trying to add more bolts, lets teach people to take finding their pro more seriously, don't downclimb friction slab, pay more attention to route beta and don't get off route, don't get on friction slab after rain - and all of this on an R rated route of all things where you don't have room for error.

If you don't believe me, open up any AAC Accident journal from the last few years. People get in over their heads and get hurt. It can happen on a grid bolted sport route at the Red, or Snake Dike.

Lind zi wrote:

 Who, though, is the local climbing community? I worry that it's just the loudest people who have been around the longest. What mechanism exists to make sure we're getting representative input? What I see is that when people have a concern about under-bolting, like in this convo, others simply threaten to chop any bolts added. That, to me, doesn't seem like the community working together to make the best decision for all. 

This is a critical point and an area which I've actually worked on in a completely different (not climbing/outdoors) context. When you're trying to create services or guidelines for a certain community, you ideally put some work in to figure out what that community encompasses and get buy-in and participation from the various sections therein. As has been noted in this thread, the climbing community has changed a lot in recent years, so how do you incorporate different voices, including newcomers. If this were my project I would start with some surveys and qualitative interviews just to understand the parameters of the community of users of the area. Please point me to any of those efforts that already might exist. :) 

I'm very curious to hear more about when "the community" has decided to alter a route and how perspectives were collected to make those decisions. If you have time to throw some examples my way, I would be more than delighted to read about them. 

Thanks! 

Maybe I can give you a better perspective. You seem to look at climbing as a whole instead of looking at the subsets(trad, sport, bouldering, alpine/ice) Some people participate in many subsets of climbing but some stick to only one area.

Climbs that have been put up years ago in the traditional style and have had many ascents should not be put up for debate for conversion into a sport climb. There are a great number of sport climbs that exist if you prefer to climb under the safest of conditions. 

People who trad climb need to weigh the risk of danger of a climb vs their mental and physical abilities. Every trad route is potentially dangerous and you need to understand you are putting yourself at risk, but that is also part of the attraction to some people. It is a style where you can put your physical and mental toughness to the test. It also is a style that embraces the concept of minimal alteration to the rock, which many believe in. If that’s not you then stick to sport climbing. Alpine climbing is not safe as well, should we attempt to make all the mountains “safe” to ascend by all or leave them as a challenge to those willing to embrace the dangers?

Great trad climbs are a treasure. The sport climbing masses pumped out by gyms should not be able to take them away by vote. You don’t deserve an opinion on a trad climb if you only sport climb There are a lot more sport climbers now because of gyms. The sheer numbers vs trad climbers makes any climb vulnerable if the masses want it “safe”. Therefore there needs to be “gatekeeping” to avoid anyones uninformed opinion having the same importance as someone who has actually lead the route. People use local climbing community to say the climbers most knowledgeable and experienced in an area. These people likely have thought of or debated your concerns already. 

sandiego wrote: The sport climbing masses pumped out by gyms should not be able to take them away by vote. You don’t deserve an opinion on a trad climb if you only sport climb There are a lot more sport climbers now because of gyms. The sheer numbers vs trad climbers makes any climb vulnerable if the masses want it “safe”. Therefore there needs to be “gatekeeping” to avoid anyones uninformed opinion having the same importance as someone who has actually lead the route. People use local climbing community to say the climbers most knowledgeable and experienced in an area. These people likely have thought of or debated your concerns already. 

THIS. If you aren't ready to climb SD with the current exposure then the lack of bolts will keep you off it until you are. The issue seems to be a lack of understanding that 5.7 and 5.7R  are two DIFFERENT grades. Just like you shouldn't get on a 5.13 route when you only climb 5.10, you shouldn't get on a "R" or "X" rated route until you're confident in your climbing skills and have a solid grip on your head game. Anyone who thinks SD is only 5.7 (not R) needs to find a mentor and climb more.

As said by Sandiego, part of the challenge for some is overcoming fear. The risk adds to the adventure and for a lot of the experienced climbers, that is a huge part of why they (I) keep climbing. For a lot of people coming from a gym background, climbing is a fun way to get fitness outdoors. When the climbing-as-fitness crowd comes along and wants to add bolts, it threatens to ruin the adventure. Some people don't enjoy the risky adventure and that's fine. Nobody is holding a gun to your head making you climb routes with high potential for injury or death.

The best piece of advice anyone ever gave me is "climbing is as dangerous as you make it". Choosing to leave the ground is more risky than staying planted. Choosing to climb a "R" or "X" rated route also adds risk. Advocating for more bolts against the current ethic of following the FA's wishes comes off as FOMO and wanting to change it to suit your skill level rather than growing as a climber. 

Finding ourdoor routes that fit your skill set can be a challenge if you live in an urban area and it's tempting to want to change existing routes to fit your needs. I have this issue, but can promise that the reward of overcoming that challenge is often an adventure to a new part of the state/country/world where you wouldn't have otherwise gone. Embrace the journey and resist the temptation to adapt the world to you, rather than adapt yourself to the world.

Say, what if for each mind blowing idea posted in this thread the mind blower(s) put their money where the mouth is?
Right here - https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/annas-road-to-recovery 

Thanks to everyone who's been taking the time to share their perspectives. I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised because I've seen these kinds of conversations devolve into nastiness pretty quickly. Really appreciate the rather welcoming dialogue. 

I think it makes a ton of sense that there has to be some sort of way to regulate route development/updates considering the amount of people who are trying to share a limited resource. I also 100% agree that there's no way to make climbing perfectly safe regardless of the route. I read a ton of accident reports and, yes, they typically involve a mistake by the climber that couldn't have been prevented by changes to the route. Anyone can kill themselves by screwing up a rappel on a sport route. Climbing is dangerous and we need to be responsible for knowing our own limits. Yes, yes, yes. Couldn't agree more. I also appreciate what has been shared about the aspect of mental training. I think that's an interesting point that I hadn't considered.

This, though, is the exact attitude that prompted my original post:

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

Here is what you're not getting - there is no "climbing community." And these routes will be defended. It doesn't matter if you like it or even understand it.

There *is* a climbing community. I'm sorry that *you* don't like *that*. The Yosemite climbing community is all of the stakeholders (current, past, future users) of Yosemite rock, because inside of a National Park—which we all pay for and share—we all have equal rights to access. You can gripe about gym-grown climbers and sport climbers all you want but they exist and they outnumber you and trying to deny their interests is probably a failing long-term strategy. Every place is more fun when you get to have it all to yourself, but there are eight billion people on this planet. Sucks, but we have to share. 

Personally, I'm perfectly happy never leading Snake Dike because, as is, it's simply above my risk threshold and I'm totally good with that—I'm not going to put in any personal effort to change it. But I don't think it would be absolutely ridiculous if someone wanted to turn it into a sport route. (Deep breaths, just trying to make a point.) I'm not advocating for that at all, I'm just saying it's not ridiculous. The rock existed long before Bridwell/Beck/Fredericks  got to it. They envisioned the route one way, but someone else might have envisioned it completely differently. Going back to the analogy of human genes, the rock is a product of nature, not a human invention, so no single person or niche user group should have the right to control it. (This is an annoying reality for me as well. I love climbing and if I could demand that the needs of climbers were prioritized in areas like Yosemite, that would be awesome. But I try to keep in mind that my passions are not more important than anyone else's.)

To me that means that, for those of you who want to keep things as they are, it is in your best interest to be welcoming and to help people understand your perspectives, like most of you are graciously doing here. Cherokee, if you want to dismiss or go to war with the newbies, have at it, but I don't think it's going to yield the results you're looking for. 

Anyways, thanks again a lot to everyone for the discussion. I hope to be climbing in this region for the rest of my life, so it makes sense for me to be thinking deeply about the balance of honoring the traditions of the past while incorporating the needs of a rapidly growing user base. It's obviously not just an issue in Yosemite. I've spent a lot of time abroad and seen different access models that all have their issues. In Yosemite access is so easy that we sometimes lose the connection with the wild and nature that, for many of us, drives our desire to adventure outdoors. That's a bummer, but I've seen other examples where climbing sectors were completely lost to everyone because they weren't protected under the auspices of some government or broad public entity. So losing some benefits in a place like Yosemite at least comes with the security of long-term overall protection. Super important conversation to keep having as a community alongside the discussions of safety and management of risk. Much appreciated. 

Anyone who thinks SD is only 5.7 (not R) needs to find a mentor and climb more.

Where?? Haha. As a chick I feel like the only people who want to mentor me are people who also want to sleep with me. Please mentor me -- I'm delightful. ;) Traveling for the next few months but definitely will be coming back to look for this referenced mentorship in the spring. Convert me to your ways so you have one more voice within the broader climbing community (where everyone's voice should matter). :D

Lets just all accept our differences and we can handle it this way.

1) If you want more bolts on the route feel free to add bolts whenever you climb it.

2) If you don't like added bolts whenever you climb it make sure you bring a battery powered grinder to cut the bolts that are added off.

3) Rest of us can just climb it in the style of whoever last climbed it with or without new bolts.

See problem solved, this isn't so hard!

John Smith wrote:

2) If you don't like added bolts whenever you climb it make sure you bring a battery powered grinder to cut the bolts that are added off.

This is in a wilderness area, so actually you'll need to carry a chisel and hammer for your bolt chopping needs.  Plus a patch kit of course.

Lind zi wrote:

Where?? Haha. As a chick I feel like the only people who want to mentor me are people who also want to sleep with me. Please mentor me -- I'm delightful. ;)

My main takeaway from this discussion is that we need better education / mentorship opportunities for new climbers. It's a hard problem to solve when the sport is growing so quickly.

It's also definitely a problem that women don't feel like they can find partners or mentors that will respect them enough to not make unwanted sexual advances, but this problem isn't specific to climbing.

One small step forward could be creating a culture of inviting new climbers to join for single pitch cragging days so they can observe, ask questions, and top rope the routes we put up. I'd be happy to post online everytime I'm going cragging so that beginners could see and ask to join. I don't think the MP forum is the right place for that kind of thing because it would create too many new/empty threads.

to the "just don't clip the bolts" crowd - 

where do you draw the line at how many bolts to install? 

if the ethic is make routes overly safe and just don't clip the bolts when you don't want them, then why not put a bolt ladder on every pitch of every route in America? 

regardless of your definition of how many bolts is enough to be safe, somebody that wants even more bolts than you can simply say "just don't clip the bolts" as they install even more

Lind zi wrote:

 because inside of a National Park—which we all pay for and share—we all have equal rights to access. 

I keep seeing people say this and it's just not true. There is no ADA accessible route to the top of half dome. If you can't physically climb 5.7, you can't climb snake dike or any other routes at that difficulty or harder unless they get turned into a bolt ladder or via feratta. There is an unlimited number of places in National Parks that certain people will never get to access because they don't have the gear, skills, time, money, physical or mental ability to do so. 

Patrick Voosen wrote:

I keep seeing people say this and it's just not true. There is no ADA accessible route to the top of half dome. If you can't physically climb 5.7, you can't climb snake dike or any other routes at that difficulty or harder unless they get turned into a bolt ladder or via feratta. There is an unlimited number of places in National Parks that certain people will never get to access because they don't have the gear, skills, time, money, physical or mental ability to do so. 

Yes, but this is different than the case of Snake Dike. It's one thing to ask for an elevator or some such to be built. It's another thing to stop someone from putting in protection that they are capable of putting in themselves (and which are virtually invisible to most park users) in order to more safely climb a route that they are physically capable of doing. It's not all black and white, obviously. You're right that someone could put in a via feratta, which I think would be problematic for style, ethical and safety reasons. But I don't think it's helpful to falsely equate all these possibilities. (Edit: I changed "safely" to "more safely," because, as we've been discussing, climbing is inherently unsafe.)

Further edit: I think I've said everything of potential interest that I can contribute to this topic so I'm going to bow out, but will continue to consider all your thoughtful responses. (Will continue to not consider responses that are rude or dismiss my right to have a perspective.) Thanks again to all. Peace, love, and happy climbing. :)